Apple Says App Store Changes Go Too Far in New Epic Games Appeal Filing

[wbeasley]

Easy answer?

No apps in the AppStore that do what Epic do.

Take the app out totally.
If the dev cant stick to the agreement they signed then that's their problem.

That complies with the judical order in the strongest manner.

All actions have consequences.
Apple is under no compulsion to allow any dev into the store.

 

[Uncle Shadoe]

The court order that required Apple to collect no fees from developers who link to purchases outside of the App Store is unconstitutional, Apple said today in a reply brief directed at Epic Games and filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Apple argues that it has been stripped of its rights to be compensated for its intellectual property in a ruling that sets a dangerous precedent for all companies.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who has been overseeing the Apple vs. Epic Games lawsuit, first ordered Apple in 2021 to let developers add in-app links directing customers to third-party purchase options on the web. Apple didn't have to implement the changes until 2024, and when it did, Apple charged a 12 to 27 percent fee for purchases made through links in an app. Epic Games went back to the judge and said Apple was charging "unjustified fees" and should be held in contempt of court.

Gonzalez Rogers agreed with Epic and said that Apple was in "willful violation" of the original order. In April 2025, Apple was given a much more specific mandate to allow linking with no fees and no control over how links are presented in an app, which was a win for Epic Games and for other app developers unhappy with paying fees to link out to the web. Apple implemented the changes, but appealed the ruling.

According to Apple, the 12 to 27 percent fee that it was charging and the rules that it had implemented around link design complied with the original order. The April ruling [PDF] forcing Apple to implement App Store changes said that Apple had not followed the "spirit of the injunction" and had instead used a "dubiously literal interpretation," a point that Epic emphasized in its own filing with the court. In response, Apple argues that this is a weak argument that led to the injunction being expanded beyond what is permissible by law.



Apple argues that it should be able to ask for compensation for its IP protected technologies, and that the court should have forced compliance with the original injunction instead of rewriting the injunction with new terms that prohibit Apple from collecting fees.



Should the Ninth Circuit Court find the updated injunction lawful, Apple suggests that the recent Trump v. Casa Supreme Court ruling [PDF] needs to be considered. The ruling said courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions that are "broader than necessary to provide complete relief" to the plaintiffs in the case. Epic Games is the only plaintiff in the case, so Apple also argues that the injunction changing the App Store rules for all developers is too broad. Apple says that the injunction should be tailored to Epic and Epic's interests alone.Apple wants the new injunction vacated, and the original injunction reconsidered to determine whether it is too broad.

As of right now, Apple is required to allow all developers in the U.S. to provide links to external websites with no restrictions on link design and no fees. If the appeals court rules in Apple's favor, Apple could change its App Store rules again to reimplement fees.

Article Link: Apple Says App Store Changes Go Too Far in New Epic Games Appeal Filing

Epic (and the Judge) overplayed their hands! You can’t be forced to let other people use your property for free! That’s like telling a land owner he must let people use his property to for free! The judge may as well say you have to let tenants live in your apartment building for free. Can somebody go plant corn on a baseball field for free and then go sell corn at the grocery store for free?

 

[mikerahl]

Easy answer?

No apps in the AppStore that do what Epic do.

Take the app out totally.
If the dev cant still to the agreement they signed then that's their problem.

That complies with the judical order in the strongest manner.

All actions have consequences.
Apple is under no compulsion to allow any dev into the store.

Like I said, equally, all concept of licensing software must cease to exist. If someone purchases a software product (i.e., if they pay for that software), there should be no IP and they can do what they want with it. Paying money must mean ownership of whatever was paid for.

 

[q64ceo]

If I spend hundreds of dollars on a device, I should have a choice of how I install applications to it.

 

[surferfb]

Are Uber and Lyft using that property for free?

As I said, companies are allowed to set different licensing terms for use of their property. There are legitimate arguments for treating digital goods and services differently than physical goods and services, but whether you agree with those arguments or not, in the US it doesn’t matter much. Companies have very wide latitude to set pricing on use of their property.

That’s why a judge saying “you can’t charge at all” is on shaky constitutional ground. Th fifth amendment is very clear: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Courts have repeatedly ruled that intellectual property counts as property when it comes to the fifth amendment, and that requiring access to property counts as taking property when it comes to the fifth amendment.

It doesn’t mean Rogers was necessarily wrong, or that Apple is guaranteed to win, but this weakness in her ruling was flagged from day one (and even she acknowledged it by trying to head it off in her order).

 

[rbbloom99]

f Apple was reasonable and said 5% or 10% nobody would have batted an eye. Their greed has put them in this position.

You are right but some believe 5% or 10% is criminal and that 1-2% is fair.

 

[mikerahl]

As I said, companies are allowed to set different licensing terms for use of their property. There are legitimate arguments for treating digital goods differently than physical goods, but whether you agree with those arguments or not, in the US it doesn’t matter much. Companies have very wide latitude to set pricing on use of their property.

That’s why a judge saying “you can’t charge at all” is on shaky constitutional ground. It doesn’t mean Rogers was necessarily wrong, or that Apple is guaranteed to win, but this weakness in her ruling was flagged from day one (and even she acknowledged it by trying to head it off in her order).

And what I'm saying is they should not have any legal protection for that "intellectual property". Legal protection needs to be limited to physical items. "Ideas", to be protected, should have to be totally, utterly unique. Meaning not derived from any other invention, whatsoever. Otherwise, no "idea" should have legal protection. The concept of licensing needs to be eliminated. If you pay money for something, it's yours in every conceivable way.

 

[Plutonius]

I thought this already went to the Supreme Court, no? Didn’t they decline to take up the case?

How many times are Epic and Apple allowed to appeal?

It seems like this saga will go one foreeeeveerrr 🙄

It does sound like an Epic battle .

 

[neuropsychguy]

I hope apple loses. 30% or even 15% for payment processing is criminal. In addition they don't even support our license type and so for years I had to go through this huge headache with apple almost every time we have a major app update.

If Apple was reasonable and said 5% or 10% nobody would have batted an eye. Their greed has put them in this position.

Your statement is hyperbolic. Their fees are not in fact criminal.

This will be a longer reply than you likely want but I encourage you to read it.

Apple would lose money with a 5% fee.

There are multiple ways to estimate what fee Apple would need to break even (that's not make a profit on the App Store, just break even [if Apple doesn't have App Store profits with a large margin it will raise the prices of hardware to compensate -- Apple is a margins company]).

One is to start with the EU. Apple’s own EU terms peg payment processing alone at ~3%; add fraud/chargebacks, developer support, and app review plus distribution/CDN, and you’re easily above needing a 5% fee to break even. Add in a little buffer and that puts a likely floor for breaking even at ~6–8%.

If we calculate it a different way to figure out the possible break even point, it can look like this.

Let's go with the claims of the App Store’s operating margin being ~75% and assume that Apple's take rate is ~30% (which likely is too high because only a relatively few developers pay that high of commission -- but let's use 30% for simplicity).

We can calculate a reasonable breakeven point like this: costs as a share of revenue = 1 − 0.75–0.78 = 22–25%; convert to gross merchandise value (GMV) terms: (0.22–0.25) × 0.30 = 6.6–7.5% of GMV. That cost/GMV is a possible breakeven fee but we'd need to round to ~7–8% to reflect uncertainty in the numbers and other overhead (not net costs yet).

This is all a technical way to say again that a 5% fee would lose Apple money. The minimum gross breakeven point is about 7%, although 8% is likely closer to reality. That would make the net breakeven point at least a 9% fee.

What this means is that 10% is the bare minimum Apple might be able to charge and still maintain some profit (but much slimmer margins, which would be atypical for services -- look at Microsoft's margins for example -- and highly atypical for a company that values margins like Apple has since at least the early 1980s).

We can also look at Epic, which doesn't have as nearly a complicated store as the App Store to run and manage. Epic charges a 12% fee. Why should Apple have to charge less than Epic?

The Epic Store, by the way, is not profitable. There are multiple reasons for that, but the simple fact is that it's not making Epic money with a 12% fee (smaller devs are not charged though). Epic supports their store by the super high margins of Fortnite and some other software (why is it appropriate for Epic to have high margins with those products but not Apple with the App Store?).

tl;dr 5% would lose Apple money. 10% might allow Apple to take a small profit with slim margins. What you're asking for is Apple to either lose money on the App Store or give away their services/expertise/work for free.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I can absolutely see them slowly phasing in "app store only" Macs using a BS excuse because a bean-counter told execs "hobbyists will be upset but studies have shown that our core clientele of Soccer Moms and college students exhibit remarkable brand loyalty."

I will absolutely be done with Macs if this ever happens.

 

[surferfb]

And what I'm saying is they should not have any legal protection for that "intellectual property". Legal protection needs to be limited to physical items. "Ideas", to be protected, should have to be totally, utterly unique. Meaning not derived from any other invention, whatsoever. Otherwise, no "idea" should have legal protection. The concept of licensing needs to be eliminated. If you pay money for something, it's yours in every conceivable way.

And that is an insane idea that would destroy the economy and almost every tech company on the planet.

Taken literally, what you’re saying would mean abolishing the entire concept of software licensing and IP. If paying for software = outright ownership, then:

• You could buy Photoshop once and legally resell unlimited copies.
• Buying an iPhone would give you the right to copy, clone, and redistribute iOS.
• Samsung could buy one iPhone and then preload iOS on Galaxy devices
• Microsoft couldn’t charge subscriptions for Office 365, because paying once would make it yours forever.
• Game studios couldn’t stop you from modding, reselling, or duplicating their games.
• Etc.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It is interesting that Apple’s PR is all about privacy and security and ‘scare sheets’ but in court filings it’s about IP. But how do they make this argument when it only applies to digital goods and they get to exempt certain digital goods. So it’s unconstitutional for Epic to not have to pay Apple 30% but not Netflix or Spotify?

A really really excellent point that highlights Apple hypocrisy around all this.

 

[Student of Life]

Like I said, equally, all concept of licensing software must cease to exist. If someone purchases a software product (i.e., if they pay for that software), there should be no IP and they can do what they want with it. Paying money must mean ownership of whatever was paid for.

Honestly this argument makes no sense at all if you think about it.

Apple is not selling the software, at best it is a rental that one needs to comply with the set forth rules set in place. This is basically the same retread argument of I bought a switch I should do whatever I want. Then the pikachu face when Nintendo bans the account for violating the rules.

 

[surferfb]

A really really excellent point that highlights Apple hypocrisy around all this.

I don’t think it’s hypocritical at all. Apple makes different arguments in different venues because they’re addressing different questions. In court, the issue is property rights: Apple built and maintains the App Store/iOS framework, and the constitutional problem arises if the government forces Apple to let others use that property without compensation.

Publicly, Apple emphasizes privacy and security because that’s what users care about. Users don’t care about Apple’s property rights (well, with the exception of those posting in this thread 😂). But both can be true at the same time.

As for exemptions: companies are allowed to set different licensing terms for different categories. Apple has long treated apps that deliver digital content (games, virtual currency, etc.) differently from apps that provide physical goods and services (Uber, Amazon). You don’t have to like that distinction, but it doesn’t make the IP claim inconsistent. It just means Apple structures its business model differently depending on how the app monetizes, which isn’t illegal in the US and doesn’t magically invalidate Apple’s IP rights because it charges in some cases and not others.

 

[Semio]

If I spend hundreds of dollars on a device, I should have a choice of how I install applications to it.

100%, it's actually kinda crazy that we're even having this debate. Apple has somehow managed to convince everyone that it is entitled to 30% of every single dollar that moves through that device to install an app. No wonder they are defending it to the very end. Who would want to lose that? If this happened on the Mac there would be outrage, although anyone paying attention can see this is where they are trying to move it with every new release of Mac OS.

 

[Madmic23]

Here’s an idea. How about Apple just competes? Allow other payment systems, but only charge developers a 1% commission on payments made through Apple. What developer would use a different system then? Even if they had their own, it would be more than 1%. Apple could compete on price instead of just making a monopoly and being the only option available. Oh, right. They don’t want to do that. They just want 30% of everything.

 

[TVreporter]

Oh to be a corporate lawyer. Endless revenue stream.

 

[germanbeer007]

What needs to be eliminated is the concept of a software license. If you buy a product with software on it, you should own that product and that copy of the software, to do with as you please. Without compensating the company that made it. Pay once, use forever as you see fit. Anything purchased must be fully owned by the purchaser. Not "leased" to them

No. That should be decided by the market. Vote with your wallet and companies will listen to the signal.

 

[Boeingfan]

I bought something on amazon.com on my Mac, APPLE SHOULD GET 30%!!! I bought something on Ebay app, APPLE SHOULD GET 30%!!! It's done on Apple's device and they should get a piece of every transaction!!! Oh wait, doesn't make ANY SENSE and they've made BILLIONS. I wish someone would sue them and give us developers our money back WE EARNED by a user going to our website/app and buying something.

If someone wants to make money by piggy backing off of another company then it is reasonable for that other company to expect remuneration, no? Just because a company is large doesn't make them a charity.

 

[BC2009]

Apple is correct with regards to the ruling. But they are still making the wrong decision for their business by having anti steering rules.

Having website links in an app that open a browser outside the app is just a basic feature that Apple users would expect to exist for subscription apps that resell digital content.

In the long run it benefits Apple to profit by constantly innovating elation-inducing user experiences that keep their customers coming back rather than creating walls and moats to prevent their customers from going away.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Can I walk into Target and demand they sell whatever I want, and not pay them?

Once a customer has bought your product from Target and taken it home, you are free to conduct additional transactions with him directly - without having to pay Target.

 

[relaxedpanda]

Pathetic.

Let’s not forget Apple tried to claim IP rights globally of a literal Granny Smith apple…because they left like the world owed them that.

I can see the blood in the water already, the way Apple is behaving and reacting tells me all I need to know. They are clawing back at all the slimy ways to gain quiet profit due to their lack of innovation, poor global supply chain planning, and Alphabet no longer sending them a fat check in exchange for every iPhones users search data.

They’ve really gone off the deep end

 

[10anta]

Epic’s special pleading is pathetic and solely motivated by extreme entitlement and desire for profit.

Apple as the developer and owner of their platform should reasonably be entitled not just to recover costs but to set the terms on its exploitation and use.

Android exists, iOS is not a monopoly, and consumers have a choice - the exercising of which will decide whether Apple is making reasonable commercial decisions or whether consumers prefer something else.

As an Apple user I have no interest in alternative app stores as methods of distribution, and value the security of a safe and scrutinised central app distribution platform.

I hope Epic gets a bloody nose and loses out massively from all of this. They’re nothing but a noisy bully bragging of their intention to extract lunch money from kids.

 

[Nick Etlar Eriksen]

I bought something on amazon.com on my Mac, APPLE SHOULD GET 30%!!! I bought something on Ebay app, APPLE SHOULD GET 30%!!! It's done on Apple's device and they should get a piece of every transaction!!! Oh wait, doesn't make ANY SENSE and they've made BILLIONS. I wish someone would sue them and give us developers our money back WE EARNED by a user going to our website/app and buying something.

Imagine going into a shop on the high street, wallmart or anything else. Should the owner of the shop/brand who pays the bills to have security, facilitation and rent have 20%+ for the space they provide? Would I offer that people can sell their stuff from my apartment or anyone’s property without a fee? No, it’s my property. They can sell it from somewhere else but not use my apartment as a showroom if they don’t want to pay for this and expect me to provide a free shopping window that I have to clean and maintain. That’s exactly the same. This is madness.

Amazon will also get a cut to maintain a shopping window to sell stuff from. Overcharging is probably where this started, exploiting a dominance to make it unreasonably expensive is one thing. No fee for a shopping window is like offering free ads, free display in a shop and expect services in return. Equally unreasonable.

 

[bollman]

There is a very simple solution to this problem: raise the developer fee.
Apple already gets compensated for their IP via the developer fee.
It is your "licensing cost" to use the App Store, why should there be additional costs?